" The legal battle concerns the exception to immunity where such an occurrence "would entitle a trespasser to damages against a private person." This exception was considered in Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 1984). Judge Schumacher's dissent contains the text of the 1985 amendment to this statute.

This exception exposes the State to liability for its failure to conform to the standard of conduct commensurate with the duty imposed under the law of trespass as outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Green Glo Turf Farms v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 494 (Minn. 1984) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 333-339 (1965)). Under the Restatement, liability to a trespasser attaches if the possessor of land creates or maintains an artificial condition that is, to his knowledge, likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.

Minn.Stat. § 3.736, subd. 3(h) (1992). In Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 494 (Minn. 1984), this court held that the DNR and similar state agencies are immune from liability unless they fail to conform to the standard of conduct imposed under the law of trespass as defined in Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 333-339. Thus, while this statute does not wholly absolve state agencies from liability, it enables them to treat visitors, in the tort context, as trespassers rather than licensees or invitees.

Recreational-use immunity is intended to preserve Minnesota's resources for outdoor recreational opportunities by limiting the state's tort liability. Green-Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Minn. 1984); see Ariola v. City of Stillwater, 889 N.W.2d 340, 354 (Minn. App. 2017) (discussing trespasser exception to recreational-use immunity), review denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017).

The purpose of the recreational use immunity statute is to protect the government from suit for its decisions regarding recreational areas, such as piers, to effectuate the larger purpose of "preserv[ing] * * * Minnesota's outdoor recreational resources," and "the state's freedom to manage [these] areas in the best interests of the state and its citizenry." Green Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Minn. 1984) (quotation omitted). Although the recreational use statute was amended in 1985 to require that the injured party be a "user" of the recreation system, we do not construe this amendment as a change in the statute's fundamental purpose.

The decision to allow deposition costs as disbursements rests in the trial court's discretion. Green-Glo Turf Farms v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Minn. 1984). The trial court will only be reversed for an abuse of this discretion.

The awarding of deposition costs is discretionary with the trial court. Green-Glo Turf Farms v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Minn. 1984). Hill's Heating relies on the following language from Romain v. Pebble Creek Partners, 310 N.W.2d 118, 124 (Minn.

Gopher Oil has correctly stated that Minnesota law allows recovery of certain specific expenses associated with litigation. See, e.g., Green Glo. Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Minn. 1984) (it is within the discretion of the trial court to tax costs incident to taking depositions provided that the depositions are not cumulative, duplicative or peripheral); Streibel v. Minnesota State High School League, 321 N.W.2d 400, 403 (Minn. 1982) (trial court has discretion to determine whether deposition costs were "necessary" under Minn.Stat. § 549.04); Peterson v. City of Elk River, 312 N.W.2d 243 (Minn.

We generally review a district court's award of costs and disbursements for an abuse of discretion. See Green–Glo Turf Farms, Inc. v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Minn.1984). Whether the district court erred in its interpretation of the statute authorizing the award of costs and disbursements to Hannon, however, is a legal question that we review de novo.

Minn.Stat. § 645.19 (1988) provides, "Exceptions expressed in a law shall be construed to exclude all others." By carving out an exception, the legislature excludes other exceptions. Green-Glo Turf Farms v. State, 347 N.W.2d 491, 494 (Minn. 1984). An exception preserving a child's right of inheritance is, therefore, excluded under the 1988 statute.